Race is just another preference... chat & forums.

Show ALL Forums

Posted In Forum:

Home

MyForums

Author

Thread: Race is just another preference...

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 202 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/15/2013 12:17:44 PM
SimpleCltMan, back to my visual example from earlier. We're really close to understanding where each other is coming from. You were correct in labeling the first guy "Asian," which shows familiarity outside of "skin color" on your part. However, as stated, in America, race distinctions are arbitrary, and are "what most people see you as." The vast, vast majority see him as black (and that's what he's cast as in television). The vast majority see the one in the middle as Asian, and the one on the right as White or Hispanic or maybe "mixed." They are all 100% Filipino, so they are all Asian by definition. Filipinos get their variety of looks because of a general mix of Asian Aboriginals (dark skin, wide noses), Indonesians, Chinese, etc. I placed it out there the way I did, not as a "gotcha," but to put faces and contexts to the anecdote I wanted to tell earlier. The first guy in the picture, who was born in the Philippines, to two Filipino parents, goes out to a bar with myself and a couple of friends, talks to an Ifugao Filipino woman (people in the Philippines have-sub races - Ifugaos are one of the "lighter" ones, in general) born in the U.S. and being multiple generations in the U.S. They get along well, she obviously thinks he's cute and is into him. Somehow, the topic of race doesn't come up between them early-on. Then she mentions to him, "You're really cute, but I have to say, I only date Asian men. I think you're attractive and all - it's just a cultural thing." It wasn't just a brush-off either, because she immediately changed her tune once she found out he was born in the place where her heritage came from. That's a microcosm of why America's fascination of organizing people according to random colors and making assumptions about them based on color is ridiculous and stupid. Since you don't like the term racism (I know where you're coming from, I'll make a point about that in the second), we'll just say dating discrimination based on grouping a wide range of people with similar features together, no matter where they're from. Take you and I, for instance. The U.S. sees you and I as "black." When I went to Africa, they viewed me as completely different, and "American" because I looked different than them. People in Europe didn't seem to care. People in Asia think I'm a basketball player. Whatever. However, we probably have entirely different lineages, and have entirely different experiences. My darker skin and features don't come from (recent) West Africa, as you assume. I mean, everyone started off black, so yes, everyone is initially from Africa, but as far as recent lines go, the "black" in me is from elsewhere. So, we're already on two different genetic lines. You, apparently, grew up in the South, and I, in the Midwest. Coming from the South, as my grandmother did, you've probably dealt with a lot of overt racism, which has shaped you to the point, where, now, you see "racist" as an 'insulting label' (your direct words), and view people hating people of different races as the "real" racism that should be labeled and fought against, as opposed to simple discrimination based on color. She was similar - she didn't even get the "idea" of institutionalized and non-overt racism, or understand how -she- was often racist against other races, because she saw it all as hate, because that's what she had to deal with. I, on the other hand, grew up in the Midwest and around Detroit/Chicago/etc. In those places, there is a lot less "overt" racism, and it's not really the hugest concern there. What is dealt with here is more of a subtle thing - where people default - judge based on race and make decisions accordingly, which trickles down to negatively effect huge swaths of people. This, especially is the case when there are clear class lines that also trend to align with race - ie. the North and South sides of Chicago. Therefore, for me, squashing the entire outdated notion of 'race,' I see as the bigger issue, with racism taking a wider meaning than just hate. Due to shared experiences, I tend to relate more to Asian-Americans in L.A. as opposed to "African-Americans" in Alabama. Yet, even still, because of the arbitrary labeling system that places darker Asian-immigrant-Americans in the same category as me, who is placed in the same category as you, all of us with a completely different ethnic and social background, we are somehow judged as "similar" by people, or "from a different culture." It's a completely irrational idea, and the difference between you and I, is that you don't care about the potential harm that this kind of thing causes en-masse, and don't want to use "labels" on a personal level, whereas I do, but separate the action from the person. I barely care on a personal level - my dating history looks like the United Nations, including both women linked, and I don't personally suffer much because of this, but that still doesn't mean I won't speak out on the subject when it comes up, nor is this the "only thing I do" to enact change. ========================================== That's because they are being taken out of their natural element. They have already been domesticated. Their superego has already evolved. If you're going from wolf-to-dog, which is 35,000 years of divergent and purposeful evolution, that's a bit removed of a comparison from human-race to another member of human-race, which could have a common line as close as 1 or two generations ago due to the lack of specifics of race, and where the vast vast majority don't have isolated evolution. What makes a dog a dog, and a wolf a wolf, for the most part, is years and years of purposeful breeding of the "runt" and "nice" wolves with each other over and over until each pup has those same traits, and then separating them and breeding -them- with each other. Dogs were and are purposefully isolated from wolves for specific MENTAL traits, except in cases when it was bred back into them (ie. huskies as you mentioned). And then dogs were further bred for both mental and physical traits. At first, you said dog breeds wouldn't naturally breed with each other - but this is not the case. They're dogs, they're domesticated, that's what makes a dog a dog. They don't breed-differentiate, they pack differentiate, but the smell of heat makes even wild dogs seek out domesticated dogs. A lone wolf will breed with a lone dog, but a group of wolves GENERALLY won't allow a new dog into the group because they smell unfamiliar to them and view them as a competitor. Using wolves vs. dogs makes a lot more sense than just using dog-breeds - but then, it's only compared to genetically isolated small groups of humans, as we mentioned earlier. And this is not a genetically isolated world, for the most part.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 197 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/15/2013 9:43:08 AM
Again, if dogs were not in the position of forced interbreeding, they would not because they will identify with primarily their own breed. No they won't. They literally do not care. The female dog will put out her pheromones when in heat, and the male dog will smell them and mount her. If you put a male**er spaniel in a room with a female boston terrier, a female pug, and a female**er spaniel, all in heat, he would attempt to mount all of them in no particular order (well, whoever was closest, I guess). I have no idea why you think a dog looks in a mirror, says, "oh I'm a Doberman," and then purposely seeks out other Dobermen to mate with, and only mates with a hound if they're forced to be around them. That is literally not how it works. they only "naturally interbreed" because they breed with their siblings, because, again, they're "right there" when they're in heat. I mean, that's not as bad as the "why don't dolphins (who have been observed and taped trying to "mount" human women after smelling their...regions) have sex with fish statement by someone else, but you really are confused about how dog behavior works, and I don't even know where you're getting that idea from. Using that as your example for how you related Freudism to sexuality is actually you disproving yourself in your own argument. --------------- It's rather telling that jan and others internalize this as being about white people not dating black people and those/us "black" people being "offended" for some reason, and fail to even fathom the sociological discussion we're having about the base concept in itself, referring to ANY person of ANY race that excludes due to race only: It is offending to me as well as others, and honestly I feel like a victim here, because I am white and don’t have any desires or want to date outside my race, and I feel a personal attack by others who are taking it personally because I am not interested in being with them other than a friendship. - The OP made this about a black person not dating a black person because she will only date white(?) men. - I have been using Asian, Indian, and black in the majority of my examples. - Everyone else has been non-specific about any race. There's a lot of projection happening here from some people, for some reason. ---------------- I'll respond to the rest later - have to spread out my posts a bit.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 189 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/15/2013 6:59:16 AM
Ok dude. Let's put it out there. You look black. You have a rich diverse background which you should be proud of. However, you look black. So instead of worrying about the women who won't date you, find the one that will date you and go with her. The way I see it, if you meet 200 women that won't date you for your color and find the 1 that will, you are ahead of the rest of us. Why? Because you only need one woman to date. Here's why it's a problem. "Average" white guys, ("white" being proven to be messaged by 80% of women as compared to 20-40% for various minorities on other dating sites), come here consistently complaining that they can't get people to respond to them and blaming everything under the sun for their woes. Say we take them at their word, and women are just that picky. If they do that badly with 80% of the women, how much harder would it be for a guy dealing with 20%? Don't you see a problem with life being arbitrarily harder for people for no good reason at all? ---------------------------------------------------------- No. That's not what I said. I'm not talking about genetics. I'm talking about evolution and how we identify with what we know at birth and shortly there after. A 3 month old is incapable of learning racism at that age. What it is capable of is knowing that my black friend (do note that I did say it was MY friend) is different than him and therefore could possibly be a threat. A baby's reaction to a perceived threat is to cry. And no a black person is no more different from a white person than a Saint Bernard is from a Poodle. Think of a poodle and a Saint Bernard as races rather than breeds. Do you understand what primal instincts are? If not, then I think you need to go back a little further and read my previous posts in this thread. That's not evolution, that's learned behavior. Evolution is genetic and/or social changes based on a mix of mutations, natural selection, isolation, and other reasons. The kid only recognizes black as "different" when it is never around "black." For instance, adopted minority babies identify with the predominant color in the area, even if does not match them. And this isn't something that changes - it's an expression of humanity categorizing by the familiar. Your idea behind the concept seems to be reasonable - you're just defining with the wrong words and using a horrible example in dogs and conflating identifying with "self" as identifying with surroundings. Humans/primates identify with surroundings. Dogs will mate with any other breed of dog that they can mate with; they don't "choose" their own breed. People force breeding, not dogs. Dogs, left alone, create mongrels. They create dingos and African wild dogs. Detroit, for instance, has a large stray - dog problem, and the strays create breeds of packs of roaming mongrels that end up not too far removed from the "dingo" look, even though they started as seperate breeds. That is basically what the entire human race is - a gradation of mongrels that adapt to the environment in which they live in. People look most like their neighbors and less like people farther away. But, instead of "set groups," there's a gradual gradient. A St. Bernard is not comparable to a "race" because it's a lot more specific than what a race entails. The genetic comparison to a St. Bernard would be historic royal families which inter-breeded over and over, or a very isolated, small community, that never spread out and practiced incest from time to time, because that's what dog breeds are. Dog breeds are more like specific ethnicities, and, even then, not quite the same due to more diversity in general and less incest among people. The proper comparison would be to something like terriers, a much more broad categorization. Terriers tend to come from whippet-types centuries ago, but are now so ridiculously bred among so many different lines that they have every dog temperament/intelligence type/trait under the sun. I can look at any type of terrier and say "oh, that's a terrier," because of a few common visual cues, but I'd have to get muuuuch more specific than that to tell you anything at all specific about the dogs. My Jack Russell and my Rat Terrier look like brothers to the untrained eye (owners of either breed can tell the difference easily, just like people who have spent enough time in Asia can immediately tell the difference between Japanese and Chinese, for instance), but have completely different traits and breed-based personality types from a century of a different breeding line in two different countries. And, of course, various terrier features can pop up in completely different lines of dogs. Calling a dog a terrier tells you as much about the dog as calling someone "white." ie. "they probably had ancestry here, centuries ago." The reasons why "race" was thought to exist in the 17th/18th centuries was because of misconceptions about human development and assumptions about cultural isolationism that didn't exist. In the 21st century, science has replaced the idea of "race" with that of ethnicity, which is a much more specific designation, and is much less broad-reaching than the idea of race. And, even then, it's only used in the context of "trends," as opposed to specifics. "People with ancestry on the British isles that can be traced back 200 years ago that have only bred with other people from this area will have a higher propensity towards skin cancer" as compared to "Jack Russells, which have been interbred along these lines for 200 years, tend to have short attention spans." Once you get more broad than that, the terms start to become meaningless.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 185 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/15/2013 6:39:01 AM
simplecltman (and anyone else that disagrees with me on this concept can chime in as well), I'll try one last time to explain the issue here that you're missing, and I'll do it visually, using people I actually know as illustrations. Using the idea that you stated, that races are real because they're visually identifiable by the public en-large, ie. you or I being identified as "black" for having West African heritage obviously, here are three of my friends: http://i.imgur.com/ptiqqEf.jpg < ------ (copy and paste the url in your browser to see the image) I purposely picked three people with more "broad" physical features as opposed to the extremes. But, knowing them personally, and their history and life experiences, and using your grouping mechanisms of white/black/etc., they are racially grouped as (We have all done film/television work, so we're all grouped racially this way in general, outside of other life experiences): First guy, Black, second woman, Asian, third woman White or Hispanic (the hair in that pic is because she's doing a stage play in that picture). I'm sure you can agree with that, right, as most people do? Suppose they all go on Asia-date dot com (making up a site), and all message people from the Philippines. The first guy is rejected for being black, the third woman for being white/hispanic, but the second is accepted because she's Asian. Given that they are rejected or accepted, not for looks or attraction, but strictly for not being Asian in my scenario, give me -one- reason this can be that would not be default classified as "racist" (not meaning "hate" which is your definition, but the definition that most of modern sociology uses, discriminating based upon assumptions about a person just based on looks), and I will capitulate to your reasoning. You or anyone else that has disagreed with me. You can repeat reasons, I just want to do so with a visual marker so that it can be used as a set example. --------------------- Also, simplecltman, to respond to your other question: - Firstly, as stated, I'm not getting that many messages. I'm messaged/winked at/etc. less than most of my friends on other dating sites. I'm pretty much average of someone of my area/income/height/weight/background. - Secondly, I "care" for the same reason I speak up in sexism against women threads, even though I'm not a woman (last time I checked). I'm of the belief that ignorance and bigotry should always be fought against, even if it does not personally affect you. This type of thing -does- affect people because minorities are normally highly (dating) discriminated against in areas when they are the minority, specifically because of the backwards ideas of race/culture that some people have. Forward-thinking should always be pushed, imo.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 12 (view)

FWB and new BF Posted: 5/14/2013 3:08:45 PM
Current girlfriends, exes, ex FWB and friends have all hung out together in my social settings at times through my life. I typically don't date overly jealous/possessive people, and I keep everything front and center so a layer of trust is there. When FWBs make the switch to friends-only when we are dating someone else, I don't hang out with them solo as much (because either of us are hanging out with our respective others during many of those times), but instead, in groups, often containing our significant others. Because it's not secret, solo time, and people in my circle aren't needy and immature, it's a peaceful, drama free situation. In fact several exes and ex FWBs of mine are now closer friends to each other than me now, for that reason - good groups of similar people having fun together create friendships.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 170 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/14/2013 1:47:11 PM
So are you assuming that she felt she was either superior or inferior to him? Rather than just different? Based on the definitions provided, if she does not feel that she or him is either inferior or superior to the other, then would that not fit into the definition of a racist action? Discriminating against a race on the basis of a race, is by default a racist action, as that is the most widely listed (2) definition of the word. As he stated, she felt nothing against him, and liked him, but didn't date him because (racist) people around her did not approve, and she didn't want that trouble in her life. So, from what he stated, she is not racist. However, discriminating based on race is, by default, an action rooted in racism. While she is not necessarily racist herself, the reason she is not dating him's core reason is based on racism. Do you get the distinction there? --------------------------------- The word "racism" has shifting definitions and is a highly debated word in itself. It's hard to debate a term that doesn't even have a commonly accepted meaning. The OP sees "real racism" as hatred for another race, for instance. However, what that is more commonly currently known as is overt racism. Current sociological definition of the term is essentially: the belief that there are default differences between the wide societal groupings of people that are defined by the common term of race In other words, to stereotype in any way, negatively or positively based on race is the core part of racism, that results in negative effects down the line. This is why subset-terms have appeared, like “institutional,” “systemic,” and “structural" racism. But even though that is the shift, it's still debated. Which seems to be the core issue in this thread. Some people still see racism as only overt hate, while others have shifted to see it as any type of racial stereotyping or discrimination. Whatever the case, given the fact that races don't exist in any scientific sense, and instead, a ton of micro-ethnicity groupings with no clear demarcation lines, most of the thread would agree that considering any broad categorization of "black" or "white" or "Asian" as anything but a non tangible social term is highly ignorant. Outside of "people that self identify as "Asian" normally have some heritage from a huge continent down the line" and similar, there's absolutely nothing else you can get out of a label like that, which is why basing anything on it is generally silly. 'American blacks,' with their on-average 30% European genes are genetically and culturally more similar to 'American whites,' so why would they be grouped in with 'African blacks,' who are further removed from them than many other groupings? It doesn't make any sense. -------------------------------- As an aside, I have no idea where people are getting their "butthurt" comments and such from. Is anyone reading this as anything more than a sociological discussion/debate? I don't recall anyone in this thread complaining about people who specifically won't date them. Where are people reading these emotions into this from?

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 166 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/14/2013 11:05:36 AM
Having a (1) in front of a dictionary definition does not mean it's the "true" definition, and you're using a particularly sparse definition in itself. In cross referencing dictionaries, there are 2 - 3 meanings under the term, outside of the underlying concept, which is more nuanced. Here are more detailed definitions: The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism as the “belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races” and the expression of such prejudice, while the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines it as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular racial group, and alternatively that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others." Essentially, the crux of the thread is this: - You posited a hypothesis that just because a person does not want to date a race, they are not necessarily racist because there are other reasons they may not want to date a race, ie. social pressures. - It was countered in this thread by myself and others that while the person themselves may not harbor any hate, the process of rejecting all members of a particular race is, by default, a racist action, since the core reasons will always have a racist reason, this being: belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race ...which is a definition of racism. To reject a race in the context of what you stated, you have to a) believe the current classification of races is a real tangible thing, which, given that there are no clear demarcation lines, is an impossibility, and b) believe that this non-tangible social distinction provides a default difference between people, on top of that. For your woman in question, the point was brought out that while she may not be a race-hater, the action of rejecting someone for their race is by default a racist action, no matter what the reasoning for it is. That the core reason for it is other peoples' racism as opposed to her own does not make the action itself not racist. No one disagreed with you on the woman in question being hateful. What was being countered is that you were using an extremely stringent definition of the word that did not match the widely accepted meaning, or the overall concept of the term. You arbitrarily defining "true racism" over a wide concept that is constantly debated is where the argument lied - it's semantics, but important semantics as that's part of the crux of the issue. "Hate" is not the only problem with racism. The side discussion was what is pointed out in too many words above by myself, you can't get anyone who believes in the concept of race to be able to define where one race starts and another ends, or how this is determined. The country can't even figure it out in a census - several European countries of origins (ie. The Irish) didn't even produce white people until they were arbitrarily added along the way. If Irish people aren't white, then what does the concept even mean, and where is the cut off point?

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 163 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/14/2013 8:17:18 AM
edit: I would reply to certain people in this thread, but it is like talking to a wall. {{{Here is MY definition of what race is and don't you dare question it.}}} So I am just going to be general. Words have definitions. The people you are referring to aren't using "their" definitions of words, they're using the actual definitions of words. I literally quoted the dictionary at you to show why your definition of "racist" does not understand the multiple meanings of the word, which is why you don't understand what other people are talking about when they refer to "racist." "Racist" is not a value judgment by default. It is a word that means several different, interconnected things and refers to a concept. You see it as a value judgment referring to people that hate and assume everyone else is using is as such because of that. That is the problem you (and others) are having and why you don't understand what anyone is talking about. -------------------------------------------- Wow, jan's post was really, really, hard to read without quotes. but, it's clear that she completely doesn't understand science at all. I think the biggest issue here is that some people in this thread understand that "race" doesn't exist outside of an arbitrary distinction, and others don't. "Race" exists as we know it today because of a mix of European colonization, the Bible, bad pre-19th century science, and America trying to designate/divide people in general. When settling in different places, people were categorized according to visual features, and then linked to Noah's three sons (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) as the supposed progenitors of all the races (Asian, White, and Black, with everything being a mix of those). There are other linked reasons for the categorizations, but that's the most basic explanation of the current "idea" of race among the masses today. Of course, we know that is all bunk now, and it's impossible for the Noah account to exist as-is, for a multitude of different reasons (the most obvious being 4,000 years ago being too close in history genetically to create current diversity in humans OR animals, outside of all the archaeological ones). The actual, real science, is that over thousands and thousands of years, people in certain regions adapted to the region in which they are. However, there's no "set" designation; there's a long gradient that spreads out from the areas. I'll just quote this, for an example: Pictures and the television camera tell us that the people of Oslo in Norway, Cairo in Egypt, and Nairobi in Kenya look very different. And when we actually meet natives of those separate places, which can indeed happen, we can see representations of those differences at first hand. But if one were to walk up beside the Nile from Cairo, across the Tropic of Cancer to Khartoum in the Sudan and on to Nairobi, there would be no visible boundary between one people and another. The same thing would be true if one were to walk north from Cairo, through the Caucasus, and on up into Russia, eventually swinging west across the northern end of the Baltic Sea to Scandinavia. The people at any adjacent stops along the way look like one another more than they look like anyone else since, after all, they are related to one another. As a rule, the boy marries the girl next door throughout the whole world, but next door goes on without stop from one region to another. We realize that in the extremes of our transit—Moscow to Nairobi, perhaps—there is a major but gradual change in skin color from what we euphemistically call white to black, and that this is related to the latitudinal difference in the intensity of the ultraviolet component of sunlight. What we do not see, however, is the myriad other traits that are distributed in a fashion quite unrelated to the intensity of ultraviolet radiation. Where skin color is concerned, all the northern populations of the Old World are lighter than the long-term inhabitants near the equator. Although Europeans and Chinese are obviously different, in skin color they are closer to each other than either is to equatorial Africans. But if we test the distribution of the widely known ABO blood-group system, then Europeans and Africans are closer to each other than either is to Chinese. Or, to put it simply, there is no set "line" that you can use to differentiate people, because there are no lines, just one big genetic gradient that gets further blurred in melting pot countries like the U.S. The only reason those "lines" exist is for reasons to separate people in the first place, and they're all completely arbitrary. The "best" you can come up with, scientifically, is that "people with genetic roots from the African equatorial area TREND towards, whatever," etc., which is useless in a country like the U.S., where a good portion of the population is so mixed that their defining outward characteristics don't tell you much of anything. That's why the idea of racial lines used to make dating decisions shows a particular ignorance on the part of the person doing it. Nobody is talking about saying "hey, I tend to prefer blue eyes and blonde hair, so I tend to date a lot of people that have roots in the Nordic region!" Those are particular preferences, based on specifics, that everyone has, and no one has a problem with. What is being referred to are cases where people say, "I refuse to date anyone that is identified as white." When the arbitrary social race designation (which is based on nothing) is what makes the decision to the point in which you "X" out an entire race. The OP's example, unless he expounds on it more, was about someone that was attracted to him but did not date him because her family did not approve of her dating his race. This isn't, "oh, I don't like darker skin, so I don't tend to date black people," it's "they have this arbitrary label, so I won't date them." Also, just to make a point, Irish wasn't considered as white in the U.S. until the beginning of the 20th century. One of the genetically palest areas in the world did not create people that were white enough to be "white." VVV edit: See this post. Dogs don't care what dog they mate with, they mate with whatever happens to be around. PEOPLE created those breeds because they liked making categorized breeds with traits, and then inbreed them with each other to maintain those traits. Dogs don't "choose" a dog that looks like them because they don't even know what they look like themselves. There is nothing genetic about primates or dogs or anything else you've quoted that makes them choose similar looking mates. It's learned behavior or forced behavior due to area. The human genome project goes against everything you're saying about biology and evolution as well. "Race" is not a scientific term, it's a social designation.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 159 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/14/2013 6:20:52 AM
As for the whole "look like you" argument, that's the one thing that comes close to being an actual non racist reason that I mentioned before, but one that does not really understand genetics at all. Unlike what the poster that brought it up stated, "black skin" does not default carry over. Bother of my parents are extremely brown skinned, but I got my grandmother's lighter skin tone, as one example, and I also know of TONS of people that did not carry their parents' genetic "darkness." The Cosby show was somewhat funny in its portrayal, but not unusual in any way - it's common for parents with brown skin to have kids as "light" as the two oldest kids portrayed on that show. But, yes, even though kids tend to look like a mix of both parents to some degree, and most people that don't practice incest with their twins don't end up with someone that looks exactly like them, if the only part of "looks like you" that matters is skin tone and hair texture, it would be 'safer' to have a child with someone with a close genetic background to you. However, that begs the question of why the only part of "looks like you" that you care about are skin tone and hair texture? And no, racial identification is not a genetic thing. What is probably "genetic" is tribalism - the natural tendency to make groups the "other" based on arbitrary things. However, babies at ~5 months don't make racial distinctions - it's not until 9 months or so that they begin to do so, and it's not based on self - identification, but instead the people they are most around. Every bit of evidence points to color-identification being strictly learned behavior based on the people you integrate with the most. Sexual attraction is also a mixed of genetic and learned - people "trend" towards liking "big" things, like genders, from birth, but anything "micro" - skin color, hair texture, freckles, red hair, are associative things that shift and change over time.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 157 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/14/2013 5:57:08 AM
Here's a reason for you right now: not being sexually attracted to black skin. Deal with it. It's exactly the same thing as not being attracted to red hair. You cannot say that people cannot be turned off by read hair, and then say they can't be turned off by skin color. Sorry, but you failed by your own flawed logic. I went to a 95 percent "black" school. A good 10-15 percent of those people had fairer skin than the average person of European descent. Many with two "brown" parents. I photograph "darker" than what I am, but I have something like 50 percent red hair, am very heavily freckled, and am basically a light sienna color, making me "lighter" than, not only most people of African descent, but also many of Asian, most Indian, etc. When I was in Europe, I was the exact same color as many "white" people that lived over there - I guess they were tanned. I have the wide nose and lips identified with "black" people, but I knew a TON of people with thinner nose and lips than the average Northern European people growing up, as well. There's no set physical distinguisher that you can format for black or white or Asian. Any specific argument you have falls apart because of that. How does whatever "black skin" is, signify an entire race to the point where you just "x" them out, given that a significant percent of people who are identified as black are lighter than people that identify as "white?" And, yes, without being directly mixed? Also, red hair is not a race. It is a specific identifiable feature. No "races" have any specific identifiable features. The reasons as as varied as any other personal life choice. ... Among some examples are: Maybe they want someone who actually speaks their native language and shares their cultural practices.This is esp true for immigrant families who are recent to the country. ... Yeah they could go out of their way to find someone of a different race who for one reason or another studied and took their time to learn, assimilate and integrate to their culture & language -- like finding an asian person with strong irish heritage -- who not only observes but also practices and takes pride in Irish holdiays, rites and rituals .... Yeah if you really really looked maybe you just might find that one asian person who not only knows but also practices Irish culture and traditions to a tee. ..... But let's be realistic here -- you are looking for that needle in the haystack, For most ppl when they want someone who shares the same cultural, religious, linguistic background, and heritage as them -- it more often than not happens that a person with those traits will be someone of the same ethnicity as them. Again, you and others purposely moving the goalposts because you can't make an argument without doing so. "Happening to date someone of your race because you meet more of them that share the same cultural background" is different than "refusing to date a white person only because they're white." The OP, in this and the other thread, did not say she refused to date him because he was not Muslim or didn't eat curry, he said it was specifically because of his race. That's the example as used - people that do that, not the strawman people keep shifting it to, to specifics - which no one is referring to.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 139 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/13/2013 1:36:04 PM
iola, name a reason that isn't based on one of the definitions of racism, then. No one in this or any of these threads has come up with one (there is one that exists, although it then gets into flawed reasoning and not understanding genetics). Note that this is "refusing to date a certain entire race of people because of their race," not "preferring redheads." And some of you guys' analogies are getting worse and worse. I and others explain in multiple posts how having a preference is different than stereotyping a race, and people keep doing the same errant analogies, anyway because they aren't reading them or something. Food and music aren't analogies just as gender isn't because the concepts are entirely different (mainly because "race" is a completely arbitrary and non scientific distinction). edit: And there was an entire post explaining the definitions of racism and that "hating a race" is only one form, and possibly not the worst in current society and why. Ugh. So many don't actually read posts or read into them what they want them to say. edit2: This is a forum where some people unironically think "black culture" exists as a tangible thing (as if a group with no singular homeland that immigrated all across the U.S. without a singular port are going to have a homogeneous culture!) and not just as a bland shorthand term that means "any entertainment and styles you see black people on TV using," so the idea of subtle stereotyping and the domino effects it can have can and will be understandably lost on many. VVV - religions have nothing to do with race. There are Asian Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Atheists, etc. There are Arab-descent people that were born in Ireland and have far more "Irish heritage" than someone who was born in America with Irish descent and dresses in obnoxious green clothes on St. Patrick's Day. You have to come up with something better than trying to conflate culture with the visual distinction of race.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 136 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/13/2013 10:03:06 AM
I think I have a better grasp on this than you do my friend as I wouldn't have made the post. I think you are taking it personally when you shouldn't be. I can tell by your next statement. No, I'm not "taking it personally." You have a block in that you don't understand the actual meaning of the word because you can't help but associate the word with a negative value judgment of whoever the word applies to by default, and can't marry the two things. You're taking the word "racist" and redefining it as to what you personally want it to mean, as opposed to what the word actually means because of the cognitive dissonance there. See how, later in your post you define something as "real racists," as if outwardly hating is the "real definition" of the term (it isn't). he thought I was attractive, genuine, caring and wanted to be with me. We were close friends. However dating me would have caused her undo pain. Dating any male of another race would have been bad. Her Mom worked with my Mom. Her Dad bought tires from my Dad. They didn't see me as inferior, but culturally it would not have worked for her. How can I call her racist? It was just a preference that she choose someone that would be culturally acceptable to her family and friends. Re-read the paragraph you're quoting. the concept was explained to you there, including the definition of a racist action. And, in the post where you're quoting from, it specifically states the difference between labeling a person with a default negative label, and some of those people still doing specific actions that, are in themselves, racist. Name one reason a black person, as a default, would not fit in with "her culture" that does not come from a core reason that can be defined as racism? Racism is defined as (a) stereotyping an entire race/ethnicity, (b) discriminating based on stereotyping, and (c) hating a race. While they can coincide, they're also mutually exclusive definitions as well. I think you read my comments, but didn't comprehend them. I don't think they are racist because I have met REAL racists. They hate the fact I exist. A dating choice is just another preference that people make and no where close to that. here are a few examples. If a Gay man hit on you. You say I am not interested. It doesn't make you a homophobic. It means that you are just not into that type of thing. If an larger person hits on you and you say you are not interested. Does it mean you are a size bigot and burned at the stake because of it. NO! Race is NO different. Take the race card out of it and think of the conditions of what the other person is thinking. I do understand because I know the culture of the south I was raised in. I just understand and don't think badly of a person just because of it. You never know what someone's intention is. So when I am told "NO" because of race, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. You can choose to be negative or be positive and move on. I choose to consider all other possibilities and not just simply label them racist. You're using definition (c) above as the -only- definition of racism, when it is not. "Overt hatred" is just the most obvious form of racism - but it is not the only, nor is it necessarily the most harmful. Growing up in the South, you may run into the overt types that hate your guts, but places like, say, Detroit or Chicago are just as racist as the South, just in a more insidious, less overt, way. Instead of outward hatred (which does exist, just in a lesser ratio), you have people who default mentally associate a race with "lower class," who are "fine" with races, but "just don't want their daughters to date them," who try to limit certain races from going into bars in numbers "because they bring a bad crowd," etc. Because this type of thing is harder to pin down, because of being less overt, it thrives systematically - and creates the exact same or similar results as overt racism, while being less hard to combat directly. A singular person disapproving from their children dating certain races because of "culture" (but conveniently not banning someone of a different race who is even farther removed from their actual physical culture) isn't a big deal in the singular, but when it becomes widespread, all of a sudden some people are only working with 10% of the eligible dating pool (which is not an exaggeration), are limited in what venues they can go to, and have a harder life in general. And it's something that can be completely avoided, for the most part. I don't know why you (and others) keep missing this, but (race) and (sexuality) are not analogous in this situation. - If a man hit on you and you say "no," it can be because you are not attracted to men. There is a common thing there, and that is "man." And it can be explained away with a biological component. - If you say "I will not date an Indian person" and someone says "why," you have to jump through 18 million different mental hoops to justify it as not being racist. You can't say "I'm not attracted to Indians," because there are Indians physically indistinguishable from white and black people, for instance - there's too much genetic diversity there to reasonably say you aren't attracted to hundreds of millions of people. You can't say "because culture" because they could have been born into the same culture as you. There's nothing you can do that wouldn't be a result of stereotyping, which is the (a) definition of racism. there is no common thing there outside of the label. If you don't understand that - you don't really understand the concept of racism. Overt hate is not the only component.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 133 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/13/2013 5:50:42 AM
x 2. My thoughts exactly. I am the product of a mixed race union myself but really, people can date whomever they wish to date. It's their prerogative. Dating & mate criteria is a very personal thing. Why even make it our business to judge who they do or don't date? What about those who aren't attracted to overweight people?.. older ppl?... bald ppl?... bearded ppl? ... hairy ppl?... hairless ppl? ... younger ppl?.. shorter ppl? ... single parent ppl? ... freckled-faced ppl? ..... long-nosed ppl?.. short-nosed ppl? ..... blonde ppl?.... brunette ppl?.... pale skinned ppl?... dark-skinned ppl?... curly-haired ppl? ... straight haired ppl? ..... etc etc .... Some of these physical traits you can alter (to a certain degree) - but some of these you can't. It is what it is. Forcing or labeling ppl to "must date such and such or else they are bigoted and/or narrow-minded" is about as ridiculous as saying "You are so bigoted cos you don't date/ aren't attracted to red-heads with freckles" ...... or "You are so narrow-minded for not dating guys with hairy backs! pffffft!".. ... A statement of a definition is not judging. Saying someone is a bad person, or making a value judgment is judging. That distinction was clearly made in my and other people's posts, so what are you going on about here? As for your examples, specific (every "specific" here refers to visuals) and universal (in that it's something that applies to all humanity at some point in their lives), choice, choice, choice, specific, specific and universal, specific and possibly evolutionary but somewhat of an analogy, choice, specific, specific, specific, and the rest from that point on are all visual specifics as well. You're also one of the people missing the overall point. What is physically universally exclusive about an Asian person, to compare it to your example of "redheads with freckles?" As an example, I dated a very light black person with red hair and freckles before. edit: Also, the other distinction made was there's a huge difference between, "I tend to be physically drawn to someone with certain physical features that is more commonly found under this racial distinction," and "there is no one in this cross section of hundreds of millions of people that I would date (that is as genetically and mentally diverse as the human race as a whole) because of this label that those hundreds of millions of people have placed on them."

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 132 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/13/2013 5:28:51 AM
Let's make this even more absurd for fun- let's say that lots of people in america have some discriminatory thoughts against gay people- seems true right? Based on abmccray's notion of discriminatory acts, he is discriminating against gay people if he is not also dating men. After all, if you are not out there dating guys, you are not enacting change, and aren't righting a wrong... thus you are engaging in discriminatory actions by not dating men. And gay guys, don't get so excited, as you now all have to date women as well! Now we've reached total absurdity. I'm going to assume you just posted this when you were sleepy so you couldn't see the ridiculously glaring logical error with your analogy, even though I stated it in my post. Because, as-is, that analogy is absolutely ridiculous since it misses the whole point of the issue. There is nothing mutually exclusive in a race. There are black and indian people lighter than white people, Asian people without the "stereotypical asian eye folds," and Latin people with those same folds, etc. That's because race is an arbitrary social concept and not a valid scientific designation. It's essentially impossible for an entire race to not contain someone you are not attracted to, outside of discrimination because of the race itself and association based on that - because there is too much variety within the social designation of a race. There is something mutually exclusive about your silly analogy. They're all men. It's incomparable and misses the entire point about why racial dating discrimination always has a social stereotyping buried somewhere under there. I would say this though: who cares why a person does not date somebody else? It's really none of our business. Even labeling somebody's dating behaviors as "racist actions" is getting creepily toward the realm of massive invasion of privacy. Judging people's dating inactions as racist? I mean, you're saying, random white girl A is being racist because she's not having sex with any black guys. To me, who she won't sleep with is her business involving her body, and when it comes down to a person's own body, what they don't put in it is there own business. Getting politically correct about it is kind of absurd. I'm certainly not going to start having sex with black girls just so I can "enact change". That's getting a bit ridiculous, don't you think? I can understand you standing up to your family because you personally want to enact change, but to think everyone should be out there dating people of every race just to make some random kind of change for no real beneficial reason doesn't really make any sense. The word change isn't really a great word these days anyways- as change doesn't mean anything good necessarily. I'm white, so does me going out and dating black girls really make the world a better place? I have no idea why it would. If I want to exclusively date white girls, there is no wrong to right at all, as if I wanted to date only white girls, I would be doing absolutely nothing wrong at all- my body is my business. It would only be wrong if I started interfering with other people who wanted to date outside their race. Now you're shifting goalposts. The topic of the post, and what was being responded to was "this is why it is a racist action by the definition of the word." Not one person said anything about controlling who other people sleep with. This was a case of a woman who was apparently attracted to a black man but would not date him because her family would not approve and she might be shunned by her family for doing so. This is someone who knows that this is bigoted, and instead of standing up to her family, and making an action that might result in positive change down the line, she instead capitulates to her family and validates their thinking, which does nothing but perpetuate the mindset. It's something to sympathize with, and something that is understandable, but the action of not dating a black man because he's black is still a racist action. Just like my (correct) analogy of not allowing a black man to eat at your restaurant in the 50s is still a racist action, even if it's doing so in fear for your own well being. It's not saying the person doing it is "bad," but they are still doing a negative by default. Which is the distinction made. No one is "telling her what to do" (or you, by extension); this is talking about the definition of the word and the effects of what those types of actions are. Your goalpost movement is irrelevant.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 882 (view)

u can't have a platonic friendship with opposite sex Posted: 5/12/2013 10:21:09 PM
Good points mysterious_stranger. Society is barraged by sit-coms with really inappropriate unrealistic living arrangements like "Friends". I occasionally watch re-runs of "Lie to me" but get soooo turned off by the main characters being OS best friends and business partners. The drama often unfolds as to how difficult it is for either to maintain a relationship. I have encountered men programmed this way and found the easiest way to make it all come crashing down as quickly as possible is to turn the tables. For example, dating a guy who plans one on one time with an ex or female friends. A day or two later I would inform him I am going away for the day with a guy friend, usually younger, cuter and more successful. Don't know what time we will be back. That plan never failed and no one needed to argue about insecurity or jealousy. However in my middle age, I only date men who have lived and learned and know how to behave properly with the opposite sex. This efficiently weeds out the players and the fools. Someone who has admittedly, purposely used passive aggressive behavior in a relationship is spouting off about "relationship maturity." How telling.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 127 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/12/2013 10:18:04 PM
I had a high school friend secretly confess her attraction for me back then. Her father would have thrown her out of the house and disowned her. Her first cousin was ran out of the house into the street because of dating a hispanic man. She said that she just didn't want to loose her family. That is a preference that to me is understandable even to this day when we meet for coffee. She pined over what "could" have been and never could be because of friends/family/cultural area we came from. For those who don't understand that, maybe that is part of the problem. You don't live where, how, and have to deal with the culture of it. Why bring that kind of hassle to your dating life? Doesn't make you racist, to say I like being your friend, but we can't date. Dating is HARD enough, but to add a different race to it, can be daunting still in some areas. To some extent, it is downright dangerous... What you keep failing to "get," in this, and the other thread you started about this before, is that you're missing the difference between a racist action and a racist person. "Not dating an entire race" is always a racist action because the underlying reason for that action is always based on the definition of racism - either stereotyping an entire race negatively, or viewing that race as inferior to another. There's really no way around this, if you ask enough "whys," the reason will always be something definitively racist, just because there's too much diversity within a race to pigeonhole any one trait or group of traits on every member of that race. I've read your comments in this and the other threads, and your mindset is pretty easy to determine. In your mind, being racist = bad, but you've met people that have done racist actions for reasons you can sympathize with, so they obviously aren't bad people, so you don't think they're racist. And this can be true in some cases to a degree - they might personally not view a race as "lesser" in any way, but they're still making a negative determination about that race, just because of the race. As an example, there were a lot of people in the early-mid 20th century that didn't think that black people were inferior in any way, but they still had separate fountains in their establishments or wouldn't let them sit in the front of the bus or wouldn't allow them to eat in their restaurants because, like you said, "who wants to invite that kind of trouble in their lives?" But it took people inviting that kind of trouble into their lives (on both sides) to enact change. This happens on a family level as well. Lots of families have racist people in them, just like many have homphobes and sexists and other bigots in them as well. And kowtowing to that kind of negative behavior only allows it to perpetuate - on the flip side, having that kind of bigoted behavior directly challenged by someone close that they care about has caused many to change their tunes. I have racists and other bigots in my family, and members that don't "approve" of a lot of stuff, and I won't "keep the peace" with them for that very reason. It's something to sympathize with, yes, but it still doesn't make a wrong right.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 94 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/11/2013 12:20:44 PM
He's speaking dramatically, but there is some basis behind what he's saying. The reasons why "crack" cocaine is sentenced harder than "powder" cocaine are all based entirely on classism. What is associated with the "lower" class is punished harder than the upper/middle class version of the drug, even though they're essentially the exact same thing. Class aligns with race in the United States for obvious reasons, the groups that were brought over en masse as slaves or just above slave workers in the more recent years have the highest rates of poverty; the groups that came mainly due to immigration (which often draws from some of the most hard working or affluent in other countries) do better. Therefore, you have racial-class divides which create the stat variances of what he is referring to. It's not a giant conspiracy - just the natural results of what happens when large groups of people are oppressed in recent history, and how it takes time to overcome all of the effects. This includes attitudes, success in various aspects, and general opportunity. Certainly, you see the difference between 400 A.D. and the Romans, and millions of people alive today who weren't allowed to do anything but the most menial labor and were viewed as second class citizens. It's easier for success to come from success and failure from failure just by pure odds/chance - and it's going to take generations to even get close to "evening out" the differences, since it wasn't until the 70s when some groups could even GET worthwhile careers/college/etc.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 26 (view)

Contracted an STD .. I Feel Doomed Now .. Posted: 5/11/2013 5:29:19 AM
Really? ... So you have questioned enough numbers of sexually active male population out there to conclude this? ... Is it bc of this nonchalant attitude that makes HPV the most commonly spread STD out there? ... No, it's because it's undetectable with men (for the most part - I guess you can test an actual wart, maybe), and, does nothing at all to men except in the rarest of cases. Guys can't know if they have it or not, so they can't know if they'll spread it or not. Sexually active guys that know of it should basically just assume that they have contracted it at some time. In women, it just raises the percentages of chances for cancer, basically. But again, a ridiculous percentage come into contact with it at some point in their lives. You'd like to avoid it, of course, and mayyybeee you'd avoid sleeping with someone that you know has it as a guy just to avoid the risk of passing it along if you think you're not going to be with said person for long. But all in all, it's so common and basically unavoidable that it's a non-entity. As a comparison, for men, it's not as bad as having cold sores (herpes simplex 1), because it's not a visible, irritating, thing. And herpes simplex 1 is ridiculously common as well (and barely indistinguishable from herpes simplex 2, just more common).

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 89 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/11/2013 5:09:46 AM
on topic--if it's racist for a white to prefer to not date anyone black, is it not also racist for a black to not want to date anyone white? Racism runs both ways and sideways. As I've said, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. I never have myself. Never even given much thought to it. Then again, I've never been asked out by any men other than those of my own race. Any exclusion on the base of race itself is by default racist, since it always comes down to stereotyping an entire race. It's even been proven in tests that people who say they aren't "attracted" to a particular race, are physically attracted to members of that race, meaning that the "block" is normally coming from elsewhere. BTW no men that I know ( regardless of race ) has received 50-100 emails a month. Depends on the site. Here, I get like 2 a month, but I have also sent out possibly 2 in the past year, total as well (just not really my demographic here, in my area). On okc, I get ~10 or so original contacts a month, and match, like ~50ish a month. This is all "when active," which I'll explain below. There are ways to "game" the system on other sites (and here, to a degree) - constantly switching out pictures and updating your profile bumps you up to the first couple of pages in searches. Logging in daily, keeps you on the "online now" lists, which puts you early in pages for people searching by date. Having a profile with a lot of flagged interests for searches gets you shown in searches as well. Just logging in daily and making minor changes or updates per week gets me a mix of 10-20 winks/emails/likes a week. When I'm not doing that, and fall further down the search results, it drops to 1 or 2 a week. Basically, you get the most contacts during your first month due to being new, but you can game the system to take advantage of a lot of the advantages that being "new" has. It changes contacts dramatically, on top of all the other profile tips that go around in the profile review section. I do have a bunch of dating-friendly interests that help me; I am an artist by trade and a musician, for instance - and it even helps overcome my "main" race (I've been contacted by quite a few "caucasian-only" women, to which my response is normally, "did you see my pictures?"), but even still, the average person can increase attention just by manipulating the system itself.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 18 (view)

How to tell if you've moved past friends with benefits Posted: 5/10/2013 11:39:07 AM
When you have a relatively close 1-on-1 friendship, with benefits, and you're hanging out frequently, you're Dating. This isn't really true. "Dating" is generally seeing each other with a possible romantic future involved. "Friends With Benefits" is (when properly labeled) when both parties know they won't work out long term, and hook up anyway, while being actual friends. That's why a lot of TRUE friends with benefits situations come from exes who still get along perfectly, or friends for years that decide to hook up eventually. They know the person inside and out, and have already moved past the "dating" stage, and have determined that they won't work out in a long term one-on-one relationship (ie. marriage or cohabitation) for whatever reasons. They aren't getting to know the person, or seeing how things go - they already know all of this stuff because that time has long passed. Of course with all the f---buddies and other fake situations using that label muddying the waters, some people do just use the wrong label for their situation, when they're either not friends at all, or are actually dating.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 69 (view)

Shy men are a waste of time? Posted: 5/10/2013 11:28:25 AM
Not sure where u saw those so called studies but they are wrong. Women are very very visual, actually there is evidence they are alot more visual than men are. They have so many options. Lots of men chase and usually the best looking one physicaly and makes alot of money gets chosen. Google them, I did a quick search and found two double blind tests on the first page. I belive they only do so for attention. Women love to be re assured over and over that they look good. And besides, women have the ability to look good. Men don't. Its more of being born with natural looks. If a guy does not have good looks, he will struggle meeting women. While a women can fix her looks. So i don't wanna hear that women have low self esteem. It's all for attention. Here's a tip. The vast vast majority of men and women are somewhere around average, naturally. What determines their end looks are the micro-choices they make in life. Deciding to smoke, brush their teeth or not, work out or not, eat gallons of ice cream or not, have stupid hairstyles or haircuts, wear stupid clothes, etc. The only thing that really goes outside of this is "height" or deformities or other general unlucky combinations of features, which affect a relatively small percentage of the population. In fact men have a greater advantage, because getting money or success will often override raw looks to a ridiculous amount in the eyes of an average woman, while the reverse isn't normally the case. And in most cases, money/success is a choice dependent on the work ethic of the person involved and the choices they make. Most of the guys in here whining about feminism or women being too picky, or only going after the hottest guys or going after "players" are their own worst enemies. You look at their profiles, and they have stupid haircuts or facial hair, look unhappy with themselves with sour faces in all of their pictures, desperately need to work out, have horribly written profiles with bad grammar and whiny messages, and have no interests or hobbies that would intrigue ANYONE. There's no reason to want to be FRIENDS with them, much less DATE them. That's where the problem lies. Most people that self identify as "average" are actually below average, and it's based on their own choices. And instead of making the steps to remedy those things, they just sit and blame everyone and everything else. As for the women vs. men self image thing - just look at the basics of how the average girl and the average boy are socialized from a young age, and you can easily see why the average woman would have self image problems. Just look at how often little girls' looks are pointed out by other (women) immediately as opposed to boys, and in what manner. Totally not true at all. Its average guys that have it rough. We don't have good enough looks for women to give us a shot. If anything, you sound like a femenist. And what i can see in your pics, i have to question if ur hetro or not. See above - your looks are in your own hands, for the most part. And how does someone "look hetero," exactly? And, yeah, I'm feminist, if feminist means that I believe women and men should have equal rights and opportunity and shouldn't be judged or discriminated on the base of gender.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 63 (view)

Shy men are a waste of time? Posted: 5/10/2013 4:51:52 AM
I assume your a woman. Sorry but, if you look at real facts, it really is women that are much more visual than men. Why? Because they have so many options. While for men, its really rough, we have to have a certain type of good looks for females to give us a shot. As for what we like in women, it's subjective,there is no certain type. Plus we don't require them to make a lot of money. Women expect men with very good looks and make no less than 70k a year. Thats why they are labled as entitlment princess's. Now yes, some guys over rate their apperances but..some women do to. Lots of average looking women think they are too good for average guys and tend to only go for athletic,model looking guys that have a lot of money. Sorry but dating is rough due to women's shallow standards Your anecdotes or pure opinions don't beat out scientific studies and double-blind testing, which is what was being referred to. Women do underrate their looks on average. Also, the average income of married individuals is tens of thousands less than 70k, so no. If you live in a downtown or affluent suburb, yes, you're expected to make 60k and up in dating professionals, but that's because in those areas, that's the AVERAGE or under (ie. San Fran, New York where it raises much higher). Otherwise, no, you obviously don't "need to make 70k" (which isn't even much now as is relatively easily doable with effort and planning, in most cases, it's your fault if you don't make that much via poor planning or lack of job-focused education). The only difference between the "entitlement" here is that since oppression of women is gradually dying out, simply existing and having a job is not enough to entitle a man a wife. Now that women are able to work and don't have to depend entirely on getting married to survive, he now has to actually be appealing and interesting to have someone interested in him! That's why all the whiny guys with nothing to offer are looking at the countries where women are still basically slaves and saying it's "right" there - it's the only chance they have to be unappealing and basically still be guaranteed a woman just because they can pay for her, essentially.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 59 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/9/2013 4:54:06 PM
What you like visually is still based on association. That's just how brains work. Somewhere, along the line, where you don't remember, something caused you to associate a certain look with desirable. For many people, it's their earliest sexual imprints, ie. as a kid, a guy got into his uncles porn stash and saw his first sex scene with a certain type of woman, so subconsciously associated sex with that look from then on out, even though they don't remember that moment. It could be advertisements, cartoons, movies, first boyfriends, parents, the guy every girl in school crushed over in elementary school, whatever. Whatever the case, that's how "micro" sttraction preferences work, and also why there's a bit of a push to stop EXCLUSIVELY pushing light white/hispanic/asian women or tall white/black men as sex objects in film, as that creates that kind of worldwide-impression that hits when young and has an effect into adulthood. That's basically what the science of advertising is, and how it works. Visual association is a killer with ALL people because we're visual creatures. Unless you're constantly self-aware, you pretty much can't avoid it.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 57 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/9/2013 1:57:56 PM
My SO, who had a very bare bones profile, was 80 lbs. heavier than he is in the pictures, and was looking in a small town in Central Pennsylvania, with a very low percentage of minorities, had no trouble finding dates. I really don't think that race is the reason people don't get responses, for the most part. It is to a degree. On other dating sites, where you can see people's racial "preferences" openly, only 10% of women will allow Black or Indian or Middle Eastern or Asian men as a "preference." 90% will allow "white." This is including "no preference at all." Accounting for people that are lying to seem open, or the other hand for people that put "White Only" but will give minorities a chance, you're still dealing with a situation, where some minorities only have 10% of the dating pool that a white person has. With that 10%, your chances drop DRAMATICALLY, just due to pure numbers. It doesn't mean you "can't get a date" - it simply means you have a much larger handicap than a comparable white person. When I'm active, I'll get 50-100 new messages per month, for instance, but my comparative white friend (same height, slightly more income, slightly less well rounded interest/hobbies/career) gets 5X as many messages as I do. With 5X or more choices, he's much more likely to be able to whittle that down to someone he actually wants to date as compared to me. It's just math and chance, and minorities are generally at a huge disadvantage online, men worse than women.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 56 (view)

Race is just another preference... Posted: 5/9/2013 1:46:31 PM
As pureblisscatch said well, it can be either for a racist reason or purely physical visual preference. I have never been attracted to males of other races or ethnicities, not Mediterranean, Hispanic nor Middle Eastern males, nor very blonde Scandinavians. I am myself 100% Italian and was raised in an Italian neighborhood in NY. I have met many AWESOME, amazing and super hot males from all of those categories and WISHED I were attracted. I am only attracted to Anglo Saxon or Germanic backgrounds/features and medium coloring, neither too dark nor too blonde. I have no idea why. Attraction on a specific level (outside of genetic markers that are subconscious) is learned behavior. Somewhere in your formulative years, you started subconsciously associating Germanic/Saxon with "good." And so it gradually made you view them as mates when you were ready to date. It probably happened so early, and without a counter (ie. dating a hot person of a markedly different background when young), that it would probably take dating quite a few other "types" to break out of it. -------------------------------------- As for the topic: The reason why "preference" (quotes for a reason there) is normally racist is that preference to the point of "I won't date this race," or "I'm not attracted to this entire race at all" or "I'll only date this race" is racist. When younger, it was beat into a person's head that this=good or/and this=bad so much that when they are older, they by default will see an entire race as attractive or not on impulse, just because of the race itself. Which is complete racial stereotyping, and shows a lack of self assessment in general (as people that -really- self assess will normally get rid of these types of personality flaws over time). This is different than stuff like "redheads turn me on." Everyone has certain things that turn them on, again, normally based on something in their past. It's actual EXCLUSION that is racist, not preference.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 3 (view)

Contracted an STD .. I Feel Doomed Now .. Posted: 5/3/2013 4:17:30 AM
Is this a joke? Why are you worked up about HPV? Most guys already have a strain (there's just no way or test that could show them, outside of obvious warts that could be tested), and nobody cares unless you're one of the rare few that gets cancer down the road, of which it MAY have been a contributing factor. And then, the issue is the cancer and not the hpv. I mean, it's good, that, if you know, you can tell the guy now, I guess, since most people don't even know. But it's going to be a non-issue 99% of the time. This isn't even like herpes, where both major strains give you some obvious, ugly bumps from time to time, but nothing else normally.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 319 (view)

Sex on the First Date - Guys - what do you think? Posted: 5/2/2013 12:09:39 PM
Stop acting like it's a neutral decision, where the man has just as much choice as the woman. If you're going to argue that it's an even playing field, you've either been living under a rock and have no first-hand experience with how the world really works, or you're being disingenuous, and being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. To generalize a hell of a lot: - A man can have sex with most women 3 "numbers" below him in an OVERALL (placing personality into play here as well) 1-10 scale. - A woman can have sex with (not date, but have sex with) a good percent of men 3 numbers above her on a 1-10 scale. This puts people's experiences on a different plane in this whole discussion. A guy that is an 8 or a 9 overall is able to pick and choose with the AVERAGE woman, and has just as much choice because he's getting a lot of average women interested in him, often. A guy that is a 4 or 5, on the other hand, has a really hard time, and therefore is basically at the whims of the relatively few women sexually interested in him. So, for statements like this, the person answering them has a lot to do with it. A tall, articulate, successful, attractive guy will have a different answer than the reverse.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 34 (view)

Should you hold hands, flirt physcially, or kiss the first time you MEETUP? Posted: 5/2/2013 11:45:13 AM
I'm, sort'a, with Stubidoo on this one: why do adults continue to go along with the charade that your first "date" is a meet up. Come on folks, we're adults, if you've spent some time getting to know one another on the site, emails, and hopefully a phone call or two, and you think there's enough attraction to get together for dinner or an activity, by gum call it a date and suck it up sufficiently to enjoy each other for a couple of hours. Because I don't really "spend time getting to know someone on {dating sites}." I basically mention meeting up somewhere casual after a couple of emails because I don't like wasting my time investing myself in something that is up in the air (I don't even know if I'm attracted to someone until I meet them). My "meets" are anywhere from a quick drink (in an area where I can go somewhere else if the meet goes badly and talk to bartenders/patrons I know), to a "hey, we're both going to this festival, let's meet up while we're there" type of thing. Then depending on the level of attraction, that meet could TURN INTO a date, or I may make a quick exit after a singular drink or something. I view it as a "meet" because I know basically nothing about that person, and won't necessarily be spending more than 15 minutes with them. It's essentially the same thing as talking to a woman at a bar after the initial approach at the point of "meeting" someone online for me. That's not true for me. No kiss doesn't always mean not interested. I have been on second dates when there was no kissing on the first date. Other times there was kissing ( and sometimes a little bit more than that ) on the first date and there wasn't another date. Yep, that's why it's silly to have tons of "rules." I've had long term relationships after not kissing until the third date, and first dates that ended in sex and nothing from that point on. Or vice versa. You basically play it by ear until you know.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 249 (view)

Of which astrological sign are most divorced people? Posted: 5/2/2013 8:44:50 AM
There are many branches of astrology but the Indian Astrology (Vedic Astrology) is closed to statistic and astronomy combined. This branch of astrology will use a longitude and latitude of precise your birth location as well as time of your birth to calculated the stars' location at the time you were born. There are observatory built for this purpose in India long time ago in 1800 century at city of Jaipur. Then Chinese astrology that use the year, month and date, may be the time of your birth to determine the out come. Another is Western Astrology which been using far back in 1500....or older since I read some history and found bit and pieces of this evidence like Queen Elizabeth I had been predicted her future by astrologer belong to Queen Mary and he switched the camp and became her advisory during her reign. I was a skeptic but my mom used to give me this notion "if there is no merit in astrology, it would not have last for over thousand of years". Astrology use to be guarded it secret and available only for the rulers of the land. For me at the present: if I had paid some attention to it, I may have been prevent to have a disastrous marriage. 1) Many of those stars are so many light years away, they may not even exist now. Astrologers didn't understand distance + the speed of light, and thought of them as fixed objects that are there as you see them. The whole idea of basing things on a star's position is proven wrong for this reason. 2) Your mom is committing two different obvious logical fallacies, the biggest being an appeal to tradition, which is one of the worst fallacies there is. When people don't understand things, they make up religion and superstition to explain them, and the things that "last longest" are the less specific, and thus harder to prove, things. Therefore, the gods of seasons and nature and lightning disappear when we can predict the weather on a wide scale. On the flip side, the Abrahamic God (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) sticks around longer because he's invisible and mysterious and does things in mysterious ways that can randomly be attributed to him - meaning there's no base concept there to even be disproven since it's impossibly vague. Similarly, astrology is ENTIRELY superstition, the same as "walking under a ladder will give you bad luck" to the point where it will stick around because there's not enough of a basis there to disprove it. People intelligent enough to immediately point out reasoning fallacies (most belief in that type of thing is basic gambler's fallacy mixed with placebo) won't fall for that kind of stuff, other people will. That's why it sticks around for so long - enough of the population is drawn towards superstition that the more vague concepts will last longer.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 233 (view)

Of which astrological sign are most divorced people? Posted: 4/23/2013 12:40:01 PM
I meant to say stage -psychics- as opposed to magicians up there, but yeah, it's the same play on gullible human nature and a few fallacies people often fall prey to.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 230 (view)

Of which astrological sign are most divorced people? Posted: 4/23/2013 9:28:41 AM
At one time, I didn't believe in astrology; the church in which I was raised said astrology was "sinful." So I didn't get into astrology until adulthood...when I first read my profile, and I was completely blown away by how much my profile fit me. (I'm a Virgo.) Astrology profiles use the exact same tricks stage magicians do - vague things that will "fit" a wide enough range of people that gullible people fall for it. We don't even know if the stars that make up the constellations still EXIST in many cases - there is literally no reason at all to believe in astrology, and the whole thing is a basic causation-correlation fallacy that has no basis in anything at all. The gravity of a refrigerator affects a person more than the gravity of any star, for comparison. People that are into astrology would be MUCH BETTER served to get into Myers-Briggs testing or something, as it's the same thing (well, there aren't any goofy predictions involved, so there's that), with SOME actual scientific basis (answering enough questions makes you categorize-able according to observable trends to make assumptions on those base trends).

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 159 (view)

Friends with benefits rules Posted: 4/23/2013 9:16:48 AM
NEVER ever ever ever(ever ever ever ever), buy a FWB ANYTHING!!!!!! No jewelry, no loungerie, NOTHING. They're not "friends", they're just people you bang, the ONLY gain from it from either side should be sex. What in the world are you talking about? Any FWB i've had, I'm still friends with now, WITHOUT benefits since parties have moved on to other people. I love how people are attempting to extrapolate their closed-mindedness, bad experiences, or failures onto the entire world as a weak attempt to build themselves up. edit: I think the largest issue is that people are PLANNING and SCHEMING to be in "FWB" situations because of ulterior motives, whereas true, working FWB situations are things that most parties just fall into. Good friends that know they won't work out hook up from time to time. Or exes with an amicable breakup where both parties know they won't work together just end up hooking up when neither is seeing anyone else. Not, "I'm going to plan to be in a FWB relationship with this person from the day I meet them," or "I'll call them a FWB because I don't want to hurt their feelings and let them know that I don't want to hang out with them for anything but sex," which seems to be the cause from many of these comments.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 53 (view)

Facebook and Women Posted: 4/17/2013 3:58:59 PM
I don't approve friend requests from anyone I don't know. I don't have many FB friends because I'm not close with that many people. 50? 100? 500? 1,000? That's just ridiculous. Um, 50 is simply family + friendly coworkers/recent ex-coworkers for most people. Not to mention old schoolmates you came across on there, or other old childhood friends that you may have lost contact with and now reconnect with casually. And current friends, and friends of friends that hang around your circles. How is 50 "ridiculous?" Do you live in the middle of nowhere or not get at least SOMEWHAT chummy with coworkers or network? The average is something like 150, counting all of that, for the average person in their 20's/30's, without "stacking" to any degree. The ~500 area is where people are just purposely adding for numbers.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 73 (view)

Pissed, Played and Out for revenge...Or not? Posted: 4/17/2013 12:33:02 PM
(happynewstart) abmccray - I agree with most of what you said and its good. Its just this bit I dont get:- "Because "what a guy will date" and "what a guy will have sex with" do not always align, he MAY have still attempted to have sex," whats the difference? if he didnt want to date her why try and have sex with her? isnt that using someone? No. Sex is just one of the multitudes of actions that people do; the worth of which is completely subjective from person to person. It's not "using" anyone any more than hugging or kissing or buying dinner is, by a default. Many, if not most, guys (and women, from my experience), do not need to want to have a relationship with someone to have sex with them. There can be sexual attraction while knowing that you do not want a relationship with that person for various reasons. Therefore, depending on how the person in question views sex, some people are willing to have sex without the prospects of relationship just for the fun aspects of it, knowing that nothing else is involved. This is (probably) more common with men than women (but again, from my observation, it actually seems that women as a whole are just less vocal about it), still, possibly because the world is still a bit sexist and (too many) women are socialized to believe that sex is some kind of "gift" they must use to levy against a man's attentions, and (many) men are socialized to think that there is merit that comes from raising their sexual numbers. It's only "using" someone if someone lies, coerces, or forces someone into doing it, and even then, the onus isn't on "using," but on the deceit or force they used to get their way. In most cases I've seen here, it's actually the person FAILING to "use" their sex to hook someone into a relationship, and then trying to push the "blame" off of themselves for being "unworthy' of a relationship, instead making the other party out to be the bad guy, when he/she was perfectly forthcoming about everything.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 87 (view)

Has this ever happened to you? Disgusted. Long Posted: 4/17/2013 9:42:02 AM
(Drummingnut) But geeze... this bothers me.. You had a beer with a small meal, then 2 shots of tequila right after that.. then got in your car and drove. I wish there had been a DUI check point. And he probably would have easily passed - at his height/weight, that's going to probably be under the limit. It's something like 4/5 shots + tall beer in an hour to get me over the limit, and that's with me at his height and weighing 180-190. I used to work at a bar and had to learn the limits due to the drinks/shots being bought for me at the time. Also, the "limit" isn't really even close to "noticeable loss of motor control" for a TON of people, which is why it's good to know these things ahead of time. Coming down from being stoned earlier is a different thing that may have added to it, but after around an hour and food, he should have probably been past that, depending on how much he ingested. As to the OP, yes, I've run into the "secret large woman" before (which is a bit different than just being a little more overweight than pics show, and normally coincides with body types marked as "athletic" or something). That's why all my dates start at a bar or something casual, so I have the option of having one drink, then leaving. And I just typically don't contact them again - someone that misrepresents themselves in that manner aren't worthy of any more of my time. (Curviest) I cannot believe how shallow some people are, summing someone up on the basis of her weight. Is that all women are to you? If so why not put on your profile -- "Only weak, thin, tiny little things that I can lord it over need apply". In your world, only "large" and "weak, thin, and tiny" exist, and choice - based looks don't matter, eh? That shows a worse attitude than you're complaining about with him.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 39 (view)

Pissed, Played and Out for revenge...Or not? Posted: 4/17/2013 8:46:36 AM
Just to clear everything up, this is all because the MOST LIKELY thing that happened here was that the OP talked to someone for a while, built up expectations (mutually), and when they actually met, the OP did not meet the other person's expectations built up online IN PERSON. Because "what a guy will date" and "what a guy will have sex with" do not always align, he MAY have still attempted to have sex, so the talking and build up would not be a total loss, and the OP didn't want to do that, so nothing at all happened between them, and it was just a failed date. The solution would be to: a) meet people sooner so as not to build up false expectations on either side, b) figure out of it's a solvable issue (flaws hidden in images, ie. hiding being overweight, bad breath, B.O., bad personality) that turned the guy off, if possible, and work on those issues so that they don't turn anyone else off. c) grow better self esteem so that one doesn't feel petty enough to try and "get back" at someone who turns them down or lash out at everyone that does not agree with them... ...or you could just go RRRARGH MEN I GIVE UP ONLINE DATING EVIL RRRARGH and never learn anything and never fix the underlying problems/causes.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 71 (view)

Disability and disclosure of such, for dating purposes. Posted: 4/17/2013 7:54:28 AM
Would this thread be headed in this direction if I played the 'race card' as an example.... eg: I post no pics, I have very dark skin tone, I get a date. "oh sorry i'm dark-skinned and that you clearly have a problem with it." Racial preferences (not, I tend to be attracted to people with more full lips so I end up dating a lot of black people , but, instead I will only date black people or I won't date Asian people ) are always based on stereotyping, subconscious, or not, which makes it racism/bigoted. Even if it's "growing up, I always associated Asian people with being bookish and submissive due to a mix of family/media/who I met, and now I relate those qualities with Asian features and find them unattractive because of it," it's still based on racism and should be avoided because those qualities don't apply to all Asians, and your preference is based on a stereotype. Disabilities can be different. It depends on the disability and the effect that it has. For instance, I am a VERY active person, and would want who I dated to be out and about as much as me. Therefore, I'm not looking to date anyone in a wheelchair. It's not a stereotype in that case - it's something that would come into play with every person in a wheelchair, even if they're a very active wheelchair athlete. I'm also an artist, and would like who I dated to be able to model for me for a lot of my professional projects. If someone has extreme scoliosis, that would make it rough, so I would probably avoid dating someone with that condition as well. Etc. This isn't like race, where there's no universal thing in a "race" that you can point to at all - there are specific universal issues with some disabilities. So don't compare the two. As for the question, hiding a disability can be innocuous, or it can be purposefully dishonest, depending on the particular disability and the level of it. If it's something obviously noticeable, hiding it is no different than hiding weight in photos. If it is not, it's no different than taking all of your pictures in your contacts as opposed to glasses. By insinuating that i'm obliged to strangers. My moral obligations are stated in the ten Commandments. So is the Sabbath.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 248 (view)

Not interested: Ignore or make conversation? Posted: 4/17/2013 7:00:54 AM
Your posting privileges can be changed by the moderators. I criticized how things were moderated in the past, so I was "probated" and now limited to 5 posts in a day. He probably did something a mod didn't like, so now he's limited as well. Normally, I don't care what other people think. Obviously, that hasn't worked, and these fine people have pointed out that I don't know WTF I'm talking about when it pertains to myself or my life. They know ME better than I know ME. I should listen to them. Maybe God sent them to set me straight. Hundreds of women have ignored me over the past two years of being here. Apparently, there is something wrong with me regardless of what I think. These other people are right. I should just let it go. I won't write to anyone anymore. I won't delete my account either though, I'll just be here occupying space on the internet. What you're not really getting is that it is near-impossible for most people to view themselves realistically from the inside. If you're perfectly fine and self-content, that doesn't matter - you can do, act, and say whatever you feel like, since other opinions don't matter. However, if there's something you actually want, that hinges on how other people view you, then that doesn't work any more. You have to evolve yourself to be something that appeals to those people. This works all across life - jobs, relationships, whatever, and is a necessary thing that almost everyone must do. The reason people go "I don't want to change myself," (for a person or group that they'd particularly want to impress, not someone they don't care about) is just a way of them protecting their ego . Every person is constantly changing and evolving day by day, and everyone makes micro-changes according to situations where they need to. New likes and preferences are also always happening and developing. But, so as to delude oneself into feeling "superior," combined with a fear of failure, people encase their actions in their ego to protect it. Obviously, if you aren't getting emails back from the women that you want (since you are emailing them, those are the women you want), there's something about you that they do not like. You can either try to change those things, or accentuate other parts of yourself to an amount that OVERRIDES that, or you just don't get those people. It's not an attack on you - that's just how life works in general. EVERYONE does it, subconsciously or not - people are just pointing it out to you rom an outside perspective.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 24 (view)

NEED 4 SOLUTION: Is there a method of making online dating less a waste of time? Posted: 4/15/2013 2:51:39 PM
Ergo the issue: Online dating is supposed to make dating EASIER! Its a TOOL. But, its over-dependance has now made a simple and natural activity into a gigantic hassle for all parties involved. It's not hard for myself or any of my peers using it. This is actually the "lazy" way for me to meet people - put a profile up and wait for the messages to come in and filter through them. The consistent issue here is you. The people that get dates just get them, and other people sit and complain and blame everyone and everything else for their failures. In fact, doing BOTH, I see very little difference between the two, except I'm SLIGHTLY better at getting attention offline because it's more obvious that I'm over 6 ft and I can use a certain amount of reactive charm and people-reading that I can't online. The give/take being that, offline, finding SINGLE women is a little harder, and you 'waste' more time talking to people in relationships (so I actually probably waste more time offline than online for that reason). If you don't do well online, you'll probably do the same offline (the issue being that intelligence and income gets a little more weight on as opposed to offline since they're often more immediately apparent than otherwise). So, like everyone has told you, go to profile review, get advice, and figure out how to present yourself better. Also, this sight lets you filter messages, others let you filter who you see.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 206 (view)

Not interested: Ignore or make conversation? Posted: 4/15/2013 11:29:30 AM
I wouldn't call you arrogant, but life will show you if you're right or not. If you're an 8, then you would not be on POF since you'd be beating women off with a stick. Just because someone is on here does not mean they aren't meeting people in real life. Associative fallacy, there. I meet a lot of people in real life, myself, but leave dating site profiles open "just in case" since you never know who will contact you. That's just one of many reasons. Also, your rating scale is kind of skewed. I've worked in the film industry and a lot of the "perfect" actors and actresses look ridiculously average in person and just have faces which capture lighting well. Since even the hottest actors and actresses are only reasonably around or above the average in person, I have no idea what scale you're using. If you ignore lighting/makeup/presentation, which shifts the idea - "perfection" is something you can see at any night at any bar or club in your area, and dating sites have those same people on there. Less on POF than others, but there. Holding that against a person is just unfair to them because you don't know the whole story. I give people the benefit of the doubt. Any harmful viewpoint should be fought against, no matter what the reason. I have aunts and uncles that are racist -now- because of growing up in the 50s and being segregated against, and, therefore, holding those viewpoints in the modern day as a defensive. I understand it, yes, and even sympathize. Yet, because the basis for their beliefs is ignorance, I fight against this and correct it whenever possible, because ignorance and stereotyping should not be perpetuated. Similarly, people that exclude races pretty much always do it for the same reason. Family not accepting them, growing up thinking that people with features common among a race weren't a prize catch or lower class, so subconsciously finding those features unattractive when older, associating race with personality or class or income due to area, so blocking them out, etc. The reasons are understandable, but they're still wrong at their core and based on ignorance, and should be squashed (and, people that honestly evaluate themselves don't fall prey to it). "Preferences" are things like "Red hair turns me on." Exclusion is "I won't date an Indian person." Preferences are fine, exclusion is, by default, based in some kind of stereotyping of a whole. This kind of mentality, or someone who would bow to that kind of mentality from others in choosing a mate, is not one that I or many would/should find attractive in someone.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 201 (view)

Not interested: Ignore or make conversation? Posted: 4/15/2013 9:31:16 AM
I mean, you could lose your sense of smell in an accident... give a dirty woman a try! You could end up super poor some day.... date a hobo! You could end up with cancer ... so why not give that chick with 4 STD's a shot! You won't know if you like it until you try... right? ^^^^^^ Well yeah you should exclude bad things like that if you really wanted to make fun of my logic you could have said if you are blind date a blind person. but whatever you really missed the point lady The point you're missing is this. Yes, it's highly stupid to not date someone based on a race, because a) race doesnt' tell you anything default about a person, b) it's been proven that even people that -say- they don't want to date particular races will find members of those races attractive, and c) since attraction is learned behavior, there's always something racist in someone's past that influenced and molded them into not wanting to date that particular race, that they just don't remember and works subconsciously. And, yes, if people opened their minds to change, they would change. Since attraction on that superficial of a level is association - based, this is an inevitability. However, YOU aren't going to be the one to change them, not in the way you're doing it, so it's utterly pointless to message those people since you're annoying them. And, even if you -were- to talk to these people, why would you want to date someone with this lack of reasoning faculty in the first place? They become a self-selected group to ignore, since people that specify race aren't worth dating anyway. So, doing anything but ignoring them is pointless. If you -really- want to have an effect, do what I do. When women that specify MY race contact ME, I point out that I'm not interested in someone that dates via race. If they realize that this viewpoint is unattractive to the people they actually want to date, that actually -might- have some effect on people. I've been contacted by a lot of women that put "white only" as well as an 'exception' for being different than whatever stereotype exists in their heads, and I say the same thing to them. edit: also, you should put on a shirt before contacting anyone.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 55 (view)

Is FATE a factor? Posted: 4/13/2013 7:17:23 AM
Mostly I agree 90% of your life is what you make it. 10% is luck, you dont chose where your born, your parents so your beginings are luck and how you deal with what youve been dealt with is you. It's more than that. People are a mix of nature (genetics) and nurture (their experiences that shape them). You can't control the nature and very little of the nurture in your formulative years. What you ARE, and thus every decision you make, is shaped very early on by factors that are out of your control. A person's success is based upon a mix of the opportunities they're given and how they react to them. Because some people are given a multitude more opportunities than others, just because of when and where they were born, it will be very easy for some people to succeed in areas and near impossible for others. That's what "bootstraps" and "I worked for everything I had" mentality ignores. It pretends everyone starts from the same plane, or that any person maximizes every opportunity they are given (they don't). While it's commendable to take advantage of the opportunities you have, you can't ignore that many people will have far, far less opportunity than others, and were you in a similar position they were in, chances are you'd be no better off. However, the idea of "fate" is really stupid, as it's all random chance with not one iota for proof of organization by an outside force or source. Also, as someone stated before, notice how people that believe in "fate" or a "guiding hand" conveniently ignore anything outside the spectrum of middle class life - ie. all the children dying of AIDS in Africa, people starving to death in famines, etc. God/Fate/The Force is so ridiculous as to give them a mate, but doesn't bother to worry about the millions of people that die in destitution.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 28 (view)

Well I just said NO to a offer of friends with benefits Posted: 4/11/2013 12:03:05 PM
Just adding in the chorus of people here who pointed out the obvious - FRIENDS With Benefits develop from two people who are already friends deciding to hook up without pursuing a further relationship, or exes that you're FRIENDS with that you continue hooking up with after being broken up until you find new partners. You can't start off as that because you don't start off as friends with anyone. The OP was offered a F***Buddy situation, which is basically someone you are attracted to only for sex, which could LATER evolve into something else.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 62 (view)

Blue balls: Your experience with it? Posted: 4/11/2013 7:46:40 AM
and you're entitled to your opinion ... less of the middle aged and old - do you really need to resort to name calling to make a point. Disagreeing doesn't negate my understanding of human biology. Maybe you should go back and read posts before throwing a tantrum because a view differs from yours. - Saying "middle aged" and "old" in the context of "people that should have had enough life experience to know better" is obviously not "name calling." It's a statement based on (correct) observation about a trend in this thread (and not just referring to you). I have no idea where you get "name-calling" from. Weird. - You're disagreeing with an overwhelming amount of scientific, anecdotal, and empirical evidence, not just with "me." Your opinion is based on absolutely nothing but your own "feelings," in lieu of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You completely ignore human biology. Opinions don't exist in bubbles - valid opinions are backed by fact and evidence. - Odd that you say someone should "read" posts when, in the next few words, you show that you read-in to posts without evidence ("throwing a tantrum?" - there's not a single indicator of that in my entire post - in fact, "Finding it humorous" is the opposite of "throwing a tantrum") - Given your comprehension of a few-sentence post, in which you've managed to read - in nonexistent tone, confuse a flat truthful statement with name-calling, etc., it's easy to see why you "wouldn't believe" in overwhelming fact.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 33 (view)

She is NOT interested and on POF Posted: 4/10/2013 11:46:21 AM
Beats me how these threads escape deletion. How many ways can you say: I'm pissed off because people didn't choose me? My guess is that the 4 entitled, bitter people that post the same stuff in all of these threads keep saving these threads from deletion.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 32 (view)

Women have heads but not bodies Posted: 4/10/2013 6:53:42 AM
Is the face not the first thing you notice? No, it's not, with anyone, really. People get an overview of the whole body in first glance, then focus on particular features. As for the topic - people flaunt what they're proud of in profiles. If someone is happy with their body, they show it. If not, they hide it with stupid angles or face-only pics. If someone is happy with their face, they show it. If not, they hide it by using pictures where the flash is directly in their face, or up the brightness and contrast by 100, making it a white mass of undefinable features. Or, again, use stupid angles. Pictures in profiles basically show how self confident someone is with themselves in many ways.* *exception being those that have no friends to take pictures of them and only have a few choices of pics to even use.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 50 (view)

Blue balls: Your experience with it? Posted: 4/10/2013 5:30:12 AM
Well boys no need to fight over who has the highest pain threshold or who exaggerates the most about their individual conditions, bearing in mind of course that man flu is one of the most exaggerated conditions out there .... plus Papa Smurf never complained about his blue balls - neither did the other smurfs for that matter! Um, what in the world are you talking about? People were making parallel analogies to make you understand you had no idea of what you were talking about, not "fighting over who has the highest pain threshold." These threads are always highly amusing to see how middle aged and old people are completely ignorant about some basic bodily functions. I don't understand how some people live their lives. ---Anyway, I don't orgasm from sex half of the time, so I end up getting blueballs ever so often when I don't force orgasm after sex in other ways. It's a slight dull ache in my case that isn't too annoying, although I can imagine it getting much worse for other people.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 37 (view)

So what's so wrong about needing someone? Posted: 4/9/2013 2:11:26 PM
lol @ some of these paradoxical responses. If someone was content and happy being alone why on god's green earth would they waste their precious time and test their patience on this site only to be insulted and disrespected? People who are truly happy being alone...stay alone and they should since a relationship will most likely lower their standards of life. That's...not true at all. That's directly analogous to saying, "if someone was happy they wouldn't make new friends because new friends will make things worse." Any new person added to your life, friends, relationships, or family, even things such as pets, have the opportunity to net-enhance your life, even if you're already happy as-is. It's simply a net benefit calculation: Does this enhance my life more than hurt it? Yes - keep it in my life No - remove it from my life Unless you're a completely static individual that never grows, that's how things should work. I've never had a relationship that didn't add to my experience while in it, and when it didn't for whatever reason, I ended the situation. What is being discussed in this thread are people that say that they cannot be happy without a relationship, which is what "need" points to as opposed to "want." Also, many of us put no effort at all into this site.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 26 (view)

Facebook and Women Posted: 4/9/2013 9:41:12 AM
There are only a few different reasoning's to this IMHO...either they were interested to begin with, then what they saw on my FB page made them reconsider, or maybe they were just lying POS and were fake profiles just to get to see my personal things... When I've done this, it's because their dating site profile didn't show a wide enough range of images to see what they really looked like. Knowing that tagged images on Facebook give a better perspective, I would look at those pictures, and if they were below - par, I'd just stop talking to them gradually. That has happened quite a few times and I'm sure some are still on my list because i never really bother cleaning it. I'm sure that's what probably happens most of the time when people "disappear" once adding someone to FB. Otherwise, it's probably opinions and such they read in status updates that turn them off.

abmccray

Joined: 8/3/2008

Msg: 16 (view)

Facebook and Women Posted: 4/8/2013 9:32:18 PM
Only posts from the friends that you actually: a) contact on facebook b) visit their pages c) get contacted by d) comment on/like posts or vice versa Show up in your feed or rank in the top level of chat ranking. Otherwise, you don't even really notice them. Therefore, you don't interest her enough for her to pay you any attention, and she doesn't notice/care when you're online, probably. If you're constantly messaging her or commenting on/liking her stuff, and you get nothing in return, shes just ignoring you, and you shouldn't be doing that anyway. edit: And yeah, I don't delete people either. That's just extra effort. The only time I bother to delete people is when they have annoying or bigoted wall posts, really.

Show ALL Forums